Gyles et al., 47 Poultry Sci. 430 (1968), and Gyles and Brown, 50 Poultry Sci. 901 (1971), found that regression of Rous sarcoma virus (RSV)-induced tumors is under genetic control in Arkansas progressor line and Arkansas regressor line chickens. Whitfill et al., 61 Poultry Sci. 1573 (1982), reported a low molecular weight fraction that was isolated by gel permeation chromatography from Arkansas regressor chicken sera. The active low molecular weight fraction was called the low molecular weight viral neutralizing factor (VNF). See Whitfill et al., 17 Immunogenetics 387 (1983).
Gyles and Whitfill, Annual Report of Project Contributions to NE-60 (Oct. 1986), subsequently reported that VNF neutralized Rous sarcoma virus and Newcastle's Disease virus when administered in combination therewith to nine day old SPAFAS egg embryos as measured by chorioallantoic membrane pock formation. Later, Gyles and Whitfill, Annual Report of Project Contributions to NE-60 (Oct. 1987), reported that VNF neutralized Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) and Infectious Bronchitis Virus (IBV) when administered in combination therewith to nine day old SPAFAS egg embryos, and had antimicrobial activity. It has not heretofore been suggested that VNF is a viral neutralizing antibody.
Viral neutralizing antibodies are antibodies which can neutralize the infectivity of a virus if the virus and antibodies are allowed to react together for a sufficient time. Such a procedure is carried out during the course of performing a neutralization test. The neutralization test, which was the first technique used to detect antibodies against virus in serum, can be done with virtually any virus. See generally Handbook of Experimental Immunology, 37.9 (D. M. Weir Ed. 2d ed. 1973)(Blackwell Scientific Publications).
N. Phillips, 33 Vira. Aqr. (Lima E. sum.) 111 (1956) (Summarized in J. Vasington et al., 39 Poultry Sci. 1418, 1419 (1960)), in an attempt to confer immediate and lasting immunity against Newcastle Disease Virus in birds, studied the effect of plasma and yolk in combination with live virus. The plasma was obtained from birds that survived a natural outbreak of the disease and the yolk was obtained from eggs produced by the same birds. The results of these studies showed that all chickens receiving simultaneous inoculations of the plasma-yolk mixture and virus, and those which received the virus two days later, survived challenge with artificial inoculation.
J. Vasington et al., 39 Poultry Sci. 1418 (1960), investigated the protective value of Newcastle Disease Virus immune serum and gamma globulin against Newcastle Disease virus challenge in 4 to 5 week old chickens. Challenge was carried out simultaneous with or subsequent to administration of the immune serum or gamma globulin. Simultaneous administration of NDV and gamma globulin in one bird was found to protect the bird against death, but did not lead to active immunity. See Id. at 1424 Table 4 and accompanying text. It is not suggested that the virus and antibody be administered as a complex.
H. Stone and W. Boney, 128 P.S.E.B. Med. 525 (1968), report the vaccination of 1-2 day old chicks against Newcastle Disease Virus with a vaccine containing chemically inactivated virus antigen in the form of antigen-antibody complexes, free homologous antibody, and an aluminum hydroxide adjuvant. The complexing of the antigen with the inactivated virus did not lead to increased protection against challenge, see Id. at 528, and the data indicated that the use of an adjuvant was critical to the results.
D. Higgins, 14 Avian Diseases 579, 585 (1970), notes that the presence of maternal neutralizing antibodies in the yolk of eggs from hens immune to Newcastle's Disease Virus (NDV) is well known. Higgins suggests that, if the antibody-antigen complex formed after yolk sac inoculation of NDV diffuses throughout the embryonic tissues prior to hatching, as do uncombined yolk sac antibodies, and persists in the neonatal chick, it may later stimulate active anti-NDV immunity. Higgins does not suggest that neutralizing antibodies be complexed with a live virus to attenuate that virus, and the complex then administered as a vaccine.
Platt et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,493,825, disclose a vaccine complex comprised of an immunizing agent with an antibody bound thereto, the antibody in turn having a microparticle bound thereto. Pathogenic microorganisms, whole virus, and antigenic proteins are suggested as immunizing agents. The authors state that the ability to use such complexes as vaccines is surprising, because the immunizing activity of the antigenic protein would have been thought to have been interfered with by the antibody binding. See Col. 2, lines 14-17 therein. The authors do not suggest that their vaccine would be operable without the inclusion of the microparticle, do not suggest that neutralizing antibodies be used, do not suggest that live virus capable of causing disease (i.e., pathogenic) be used, do not suggest that the conjugation of an antibody to a live virus will protect a subject against infection by that live virus, and do not suggest that a neutralizing antibody should be used to obtain protection against infection by a pathogenic live virus when a pathogenic live virus is used as the immunizing agent.
K. Fahey et al., 70 J. Gen. Virol. (1989), disclose a viral neutralizing antibody to IBDV. The antibody, which was monoclonal in origin, was used to separate a structural protein from solubilized viral particles for the purpose of developing a subunit vaccine for IBDV. It is not suggested that the viral neutralizing antibody would protect a subject against IBDV so that the IBDV, with the neutralizing antibody bound thereto, could be administered as a live vaccine.